More troubling still, it seems executives at Fannie and Freddie had a say in determining their own pay scales:

When FHFA established the Enterprises’ overall executive compensation packages in 2009, it did not act alone. FHFA consulted with the Treasury Special Master for TARP Executive Compensation, Kenneth R. Feinberg, and outside compensation consultants hired by the Enterprises and FHFA. Additionally, senior executives from the Enterprises themselves were closely involved in the decision-making process It remains unclear what role executives at the Enterprises have played in determining their annual pay since, but their influence on the pay packages in the first place raises questions about the process by which executive compensation is set at the Enterprises. These annual targeted compensation processes will remain in place indefinitely, unless they are modified by FHFA. However, FHFA has shown no willingness to take action to change them.

Not only did the execs help decide what they were going to get paid, but the bonus structures were based on profitable companies, and not ones which were a key cause of the current economic meltdown:

The Enterprises paid outside compensation consultants $655,000 in 2008 and $560,000 in 2009 to determine their own pay structure. To arrive at salary levels, the consultants assisted the Enterprises in identifying compensation at “comparable” firms. However, instead of looking to truly similar institutions like Ginnie Mae, FHFA, or the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the institutions that the consultants identified — large banks and insurance companies like Bank of NY Mellon Co., MetLife, Inc. and Capital One Financial Co. — were anything but comparable to Fannie and Freddie. If these private sector institutions were not profitable by themselves, as is presently the case with the Enterprises, instead of being handsomely rewarded with bonuses, their executives would likely be fired.

Worse, apparently FHFA doesn’t even have the tools needed to keep control of compensation at Fannie and Freddie, according to the IG:

FHFA-OIG found that FHFA’s executive compensation “oversight processes lack a number of key controls necessary to ensure their effectiveness.”

The congressional report’s conclusions were damning as well:

As Fannie and Freddie enter year three of their conservatorship, little progress has been made to wind them down. The Enterprises continue to lose billions of dollars and continue to milk the American taxpayers for more and more financial support. Meanwhile, executives at Fannie and Freddie, influenced by perverse incentives and rewarded by questionable performance criteria, continue to receive enormous compensation packages.

The left has complained about executive pay for several years now, and Obama himself in 2009 capped executive salaries at $500,000 for companies receiving “exceptional bailout assistance.” He said at the time:

This is America. We don’t disparage wealth. We don’t begrudge anybody for achieving success. But what gets people upset — and rightfully so — are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.

Billions in losses and payouts from the Treasury would certainly seem to be “exceptional assistance.” Moreover, any CEO at a private company taking these kinds of losses year after year would be “invited to resign” if he wasn’t fired outright. So why are these two, indeed these six, still employed?

This would seem to be a larger issue than one presidential candidate being paid for his advice when he was a private citizen.

Patrick Richardson has been a journalist for almost 15 years and an inveterate geek all his life. He blogs regularly at www.otherwheregazette.com, which aims to be like another SF magazine, just not so serious.

Click here to view the 56 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

56 Comments, 27 Threads

1.
donna quixote

Gingrich reminds me of some of the students I had when I was teaching “the gifted” Some knew their IQs and thought they would compensate for anything they did and many of them did asome very stupid things indicating a complete lack of common sense.
Gingrich seems to be the epitome of this. I could never vote for that windbag.

Happily, it the primary stage, we have more than Newt to choose from. I’m not sure who I want yet, I was a hard-core Palin supporter, lately I’ve been starting to reconsider Rick Santorum (while it is true that he lost his senate seat to a Democrat, that should be no shame, as Lincoln himself lost his bid to unseat Douglass in 1858 — two years before becoming elected on the newborn Republican ticket). He would be so incredibly much better than Barry. Put there is plenty of time to decide on The Candidate. Once that decision has been made — and not before then — all that will matter is getting behind Obama’s opponent. In the meantime, so far as I’m concerned, the spinmeisters (including, most particularly Karl effing Rove) can eat my shorts.

donna. too bad you were not as bright as your students. if so you might take off the rose colored glasses when you look at obama and the democrats. Newt Gingrich is the most qualified person running for president. and the brightest. I would love to see a Cain-Gingrich or Gingrich- Cain ticket as they are by far the two best people in the race. how ever I will VOTE FOR ANY ONE THR REPUBLICANS have against obama and the damned democrats, we need to rid ourselves of all democrats and RINOs,

Yeah the Fannie and Freddie execs took more than Newt, but they’re not running around telling everyone they’re the conservative candidates for the Republican nomination. Newt lost me with the “right-wing social engineering” comment. That, and in so many words telling the Tea Party to sit down and shut up.

Because the laws that apply to the communist nomenklatura are not the same that apply to the “enemies of the people”.

And you can say that I am exaggerating as much as you please, but this is what is happening in America, we are falling into the reality of a regime.

The media obey only to the order of one party.
The regime organizes dark operations against the rights of the Citizens (Fast and Furious)
The regime promotes violence against “the enemies of the people” (Black Panthers not prosecuted, OWS supported.)
The regime criticizes “the rich” and spends lavishly for its supporters.

It’s called Soviet Union.
You may ignore it, if you want, but at the origins of the Soviet Union there were MANY different parties, then the commies started their little tricks…

Why are they still employed and why are they receiving any compensation at all instead of penniless and without any assets at all, and even not in a prison cell? That is the real question because anyone involved with the calamity that these “companies” caused that resulted in the collapse pretty much of the world economy should be in prison till death and interrogated endlessly!

Steve you are so righ but theres one thing you gotta remember. they take care of their own and to hell with the working men and women. as far as I am concerned a lot of them should be facing a firing squad. some good old china justice. they stole from the people,

There’s no point in downplaying the role of Gingrich in this debacle. It was reported on Hot Air that he was paid not one million but between $1.6 and $1.8 million. He was for his advice? Yeah right. Born yesterday were you.

Gingrich was paid for his influence and silence. He was pieced off. He failed to oppose this debacle and his election as nominee will remove this as an election issue.

The election will then pit a blow hard hypocrite against a high sounding incompetent.

I suppose you think the MSM is going to be nice to Romney? Think of his UNDERWEAR, just for a start!

It doesn’t matter who the Republicans nominate. The MSM and the entire left (but I repeat myself) will paint that individual as the stupidest, most evil, most ridiculous, most dangerous, most laughable – choose any or all of the above – human being on the face of the earth.

Romney is less easily so portrayed than any of the others – by a country mile – and for good reason. He’s educated, articulate, experienced, rationale and temperate. There would be less resistance from the opposition to Romney governing conservatively.

You have no proof of your accusations…its only an opinion…but let’s be real….if you were in the private sector with your own consulting firm and the big fat milk filled tit of the govt came and offered you some…would have have us think you would have done anything different?…no you’d have clung on to that mamory gland and drunk so much you’d look like eric cartman.

“The real Scandal” is that government backed mortgage institutions exist.

The real scandal about Newt isn’t that he got paid by them, but that he doesn’t want to abolish them, and all other anti-Constitutional attributes of big government, like the department of education he voted to create, the EPA whom he agreed with on Gorebull warming, TARP with he supported, medicare which he supports, social security which re fuses to renounce, etc.

In other words, the only problem with Newt is that he’s no better than the “lessor of evils” when it comes to statism.

I have not really seen where Newt has come out and said he believes in global warning…but more of he and I share a view that we have not seen enough evidence either way to make a decicion on it. From what I see he more wants conservatives to get in to the debate rather than ignore it…if you don’t show up for the debate, then you lose by default….and his energy policy he is outling doesn’t suggest he is worried too much about it.

If you watch the debate where Newt was asked about the Freddie compensation, I thought he’d swallow his teeth. Newt talks a good game, but he’s been every much the flip flopper as Mitt. Both are better than Obama, but that isn’t just good enough. We need someone with more core values as President. Can anyone really believe that Newt was writing history lessons for a million bucks?

You are all acting like you think Newt worked with Freddie Mac 1 time and got paid over a million bucks….the reality is that the consulting took place over a 7-8 year period where Newts firm made the estimated 1.6 mil…Newt did not pocket that much personally.

If they seem uniquely bad choices, consider for a moment that we probably know 10 or a hundred times as much about them as about any prior candidate.

If Abraham Lincoln had been subjected to the same scrutiny, he never would have become president. Neither would Ike, FDR, and JFK among others. I wonder if even Reagan could have withstood the proctoscopy all of the Republican candidates have received.

And it has just begun.

Meanwhile, the president is a marxist, an anti-semite, a criminal, a revolutionary, a racist, a hater of the country, a congenital liar, not the author of the two books he affirmatively claims to have written, and something other than a heterosexual…and not a peep will be whispered by the msm about any of it.

You must mean Frank Marshall Davis and Larry Sinclair.
You have to Google them to even know who they are, and the DNC bought up all of Larry’s books.
America has one fine big memory hole (1984) for anything not slavishly collectivist.

There’s a lot more evidence than those two people. As just one example that doesn’t depend on hard to prove allegations, Cain has been in the public eye for a couple of months and women are dropping out of the woodwork. Obama is in the public eye for years and no woman other than Michelle has ever come forward to claim her 15 minutes of fame and scandal sheet payoff…that’s impossible for a normal man. Apparantly, he never encountered another woman in his life before he stole his first election. Other than outright lieing, Obama’s greatest skill is hiding who he is.

Government agencies under any administration enthusiastically pay obscene amounts to “consultants” and “experts” and what’s the difference between one million bucks and a million and a half. But why would Freddie Mac pay a former Speaker of the House when he would probably give them his opinion for nothing, if asked? Newt wasn’t on the payroll: he just got a big fat fee. For him, it was just one of the perks of being an ex-Speaker with insider clout. He was just playing the same old pol’s game. The electorate figures he still does.

He and his supporters feel his political background is his biggest advantage. They are wrong: It is his biggest disadvantage: he carries way too much baggage. He is the poster boy, wealthy fat-cat “Lion of the Congress” who epitomizes the elitist GOP country club that the T Party despises. Does he really understand how D.C. works? Is he familiar with Foreign Affairs? Is he articulate in debate? Yes, yes and yes. He doesn’t have a hope of winning the T Party vote or the Independent vote. He would be the McCain, the Mighty Warrior, of the GOP in 2012.

So far the polls seem to be proving you wrong. In all honesty…right now with the debt problem…I don’t think people care so much about appearance anymore…let’s face it…Newt worked with Clinton and balanced the budget for 4 years while they were both living high on the hog while banging women that weren’t their wives…and people I think they are getting to a point where they don’t care…if you can get it done…then I don’t care if you throw a damn white house toga party…sure there are other candidates who look more apealing…and none of them have really accomplished anything.

The compensation of the current CEO’s of Freddie and Fannie are comparative “chump change” when compared with the money that former CEOs raked in as these entities were orchestrating and enforcing the policies that resulted in the ”subprime mortgage crisis” that kicked off our current double dip recession or perhaps, more realistically, our current” Great Depression 2.0.”

For instance, according to reports, former Fannie May CEO Franklin Raines, Clinton’s Head of OMB from1996 though 1998, raked in “total compensation from 1998 through 2004 of $91.1 million, including some $52.6 million in bonuses, “ and other top executives raked in similarly gigantic compensation packages, while they oversaw and administered the policies responsible for driving our economy into the ground.

This is such a small potato its laughable, Gingrich took 2 million in consulting fee’s….who cares?..if it was legal then its not an issue. If not legal toss him and officials that committed the crime in jail and be done with it.

More important is the fact the USA taxpayers are on the hook for 200+ trillion in derivatives about to go bad in Europe. It is never mentioned on this website, maybe nobody has the courage?
The Debt Bomb in Europe will spread to USA as your Republican and Democrat Senators and Congressman voted to allow derivatives market to operate outside any scrutiny or regulation, and placing YOU as collateral for any failure.

As memory serves me, Rahm Emanuel, Paul Begala, Harold Ickes, and other Friends of Bill were on Fannie’s board when Newt was hired and making very good money. Newt had no executive power, he could only advise.

You will be pleased to learn (jested the pilot) that Pajamadom is far from monolithic. No doubt the Conners of Kiddies all have rocks where brains might have been, yet these are not invariably the same rocks.

Bozo XIV here is fun largely because we just heard essentially the opposite from Bozo XIII, aka “Clayton E. Clymer,” who has discovered that most health-insurance premiums don’t go straight to the corporate honchos bookmakers.

Bozo XIII maintained (much the preferable position on the merits, namely) that those who scab for Big Management and the AEIdeology should not waste much time on “executive compensation,” which, I believe, is the polite or grown-up way to refer to their Uncle Ebb Scrooge’s yachts, an’ polo ponies, an’ brandy, an’ C-gars, an’ dancin’ girls, an’ . . . .

I think your ‘rocks’ get off in the nether regions when you type your spewage here because your gray matter is seriously lacking in any sort of cogent communication in the ‘ordinary world’ of trying to get a message across and plus, you are lonely and probably haven’t been laid in a coon’s age.

In fact, I’d say you’re one of those Lefties who thinks they are the smartest douche in the room whilst they whack off to big words and rhymes without reason.

I can be uber dorky and esoteric too with a touch of ADD and banana phone speak.

Maybe you should just unplug and get some fresh air? Because, frankly, the retarded sh*t you spew here is utterly useless except for your own mental masturbation.

Newt knows his SH*T. He could think and talk circles around Barry Soetoro.

Is he a fallible human being? Uh? Yes. Aren’t we ALL? Does he have some baggage? Sure. So what. Get over it. Liberals excuse the most heinous sh*tbags in their own camp and yet we Righties have to expect our men/women to be effing perfect and blemish free? Give me a break!

Is he a REAL conservative? HELL YES. THAT is what COUNTS.

Newt has already been slimed. He knows the game. He’s an accomplished man. Let the arrows sling away because the Libs can’t defend 0blammo so they are on the OFFENSE to deflect the obvious failure of their golden mack daddy mulatto.

Listen, we need a statesmen in the White house. Gingrich IS IT. He’s mutha effing AWESOME when he’s on fire and on point with his vast knowledge of how the ‘system’ works. He could think circles around BoBo.

The Libs forgive ALL SINS of their candidates. Isn’t it about time we start doing the same?

I’ll never forget the smarmy, boo boo faced, lying spazz known as Clinton when he said, “I feel your pain”. *GAG* Or Hillary’s constant, “I’m not one of those ‘stand by your man women’ crap whilst she was doing Exactly THAT. Then, Clinton and the blue dress and sperm McSpermyson got busted. HAHAHAHAHA

Raise your hand if you’d love to see a Newt vs. Baracky debate?

I’m all in.

Most of Newts ‘flaws’ have been fleshed out and he’s tough as nails.

So what if he bilked some of the Lefties of their ill-gotten gains by consulting with Fan/Fred? I think that’s HILARIOUS.

If anything, it just shows what a big brain a Right Winger has that a bunch of leftists would even hire a Righty as a “consultant” in the first place. Who in the hell was in charge of that show? HAHAHAHAHA

Recent reporting from Bloomberg News on the Gingrich Group’s consulting services for Freddie Mac confirms that Gingrich and his firm were not paid to lobby and that Gingrich never acted as an advocate to stop any legislation or regulation affecting Freddie Mac.

After leaving public office, Newt Gingrich founded a number of very successful small businesses. One of these small businesses, a consulting firm called The Gingrich Group, offered strategic advice on a wide variety of topics to a very wide range of clients. One of these clients was Freddie Mac. At no time did Gingrich lobby for Freddie Mac, or for any client, and neither did anyone in Gingrich’s firm. This prohibition against lobbying was made clear to all Gingrich Group clients. Nor did Gingrich ever advocate against pending legislation affecting Freddie Mac, as some articles have incorrectly alleged. In fact, recent reporting from Bloomberg News on the Gingrich Group’s consulting services for Freddie Mac confirms that Gingrich and his firm were not paid to lobby and that Gingrich never acted as an advocate to stop any legislation or regulation affecting Freddie Mac.

Newt is in favor of efforts to increase home ownership in America but as a conservative believes they must be within a context of learning how to budget and save in a responsible way, the opposite of the lending practices that led to the financial crisis. You can watch a video from March 2008 of Newt warning about the danger of politicized decision making in the housing crisis here.
As part of Newt’s Jobs and Prosperity Plan, Newt advocates breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and moving their smaller successors off of government guarantees and into the free market.

You are arguing the wrong points. All the funny money changing hands goes into corrupt banks. What you should be weighing are the qualifications each candidate has which qualifies him to lead the nation through the Muslim vs Judo-Christian Wars just over the horizon. The jokers playing the speech games now, I doubt any of them could lead a Mummer’s parade through Philadelphia.

Gingrich loves to tell us what his 1994 ‘Contract With America’ accomplished but, can’t seem to recall how much the RINOs he was the leader of spent like drunken traitors.

Gingrich remembers endless statistics on a wide host of issues yet, tells us he can’t remember doing a national commercial for Global Warming while sitting on a park bench with Nancy Pelosi. (That’s obviously a direct insult to our intelligence. Newt must believe we’re all idiots.)

Gingrich loves to repeatedly remind us what his 1994 ‘Contract With America’ accomplished but, can’t seem to recall how much the RINOs he was the leader of spent like drunken traitors.

Gingrich also remembers endless statistics on a wide host of issues yet, tells us he can’t remember doing a national commercial for Global Warming while sitting on a park bench with Nancy Pelosi. (That’s obviously a direct insult to our intelligence. Newt must believe we’re all idiots.)

Hey, several years back Fannie executives hired a man so Barney Frank could stick him in the Fanny. They deserve millions for that, right? So we’re just keeping up the pay scale here. I wonder what Newt’s advice was on the going rate for hiring butt buddies?

The title of this article is misleading. The CEOs of Fannie and Freddie were being paid to advance the interests of those organizations. Newt, on the other hand, was railing against Fannie and Freddie while happily taking their money. Can you spell hypocrisy? Like Cain, Gingrich is not a serious candidate. He is a shill plain and simple. Let’s not waste any more time on him.

Frustration and anger are sapping our strength. You can see it here in the comments to this article. So, let’s drop the hyperbole and accusations and focus on what really matters: Turning the country around by electing true conservatives.

I don’t care what party they belong to or what foolish mistakes they have made in the past. If I had led a perfect life, I would be more intolerant of indiscretions and faux paux. The truth is that we can only go on what a candidate stands for today and, if they don’t live up to their platform, replace them tomorrow.

That being said, there is only one question I care to answer accurately: Who is the best candidate, the one most likely to beat the incumbent (and here I refer to almost every incumbent – most of the Republicans in office today are little better than the Democrats across the aisle).